“One of the great strengths of the comptroller’s office,” former State Comptroller Alan Hevesi once said, “is that nobody has any idea what we do.”
While the comptroller usually gets little public and media attention, in the last few months, Hevesi, Governor Eliot Spitzer and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver have unintentionally done much to change that. New Yorkers who may have paid little attention when Hevesi oversaw employee pension funds or audited the New York City school system to determine if it improperly spent some of its state aid, did notice when he become embroiled in a scandal involving his use of a state employee as a personal servant to his ailing wife. After months of controversy, Hevesi, fresh from a re-election victory, pleaded guilty to a felony and resigned.
Then, Spitzer and Silver, bolstered by many Assembly members, clashed over who should replace Hevesi. The decision now lies with the legislature, which is debating what to do. And so, as Spitzer announced his new budget last week, the post of the state’s fiscal monitor, who must review that budget and certify that it is balanced, stood vacant.
While the political battle over Hevesi’s successor may seem arcane, the comptroller wields extraordinary authority. With a staff of about 2,400 people, the comptroller has responsibility for managing the state’s assets, conducting audits of local government, approving state contracts, running the state’s accounting system. The comptroller is also the sole trustee in charge of the state's $143 billion pension fund -- making this public official, as some have suggested, in effect the richest person in the world. For this, the comptroller earns $151,500 a year.
The job is so sweeping, with its combination of quite separate responsibilities, that it might make sense to divvy it up into at least two different jobs, says David Birdsell dean of the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College. Most people would think of running the pension fund alone as a full-time job, he said.
In fact, most states do see the comptroller’s job differently than New York does. All states have someone like a comptroller, and in about half the states, that post is called comptroller (although sometimes spelled differently.) In general, the person in the position must determine whether state expenditures are legal and in compliance with the budget. But said Pat O’Connor, manager of the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers, New York’s comptroller performs “an unusual number of other functions. I don’t know of any other comptroller that has the authority to audit local entities,” she said. California, for example, has three different agencies sharing the responsibilities given to the comptroller's office in New York.
While the New York comptroller oversees pension funds, most states rely on a board to do that. And many comptrollers, O'Connor said, are appointed by the governor, not elected, although elected comptrollers are more common in big states than small ones.
With so many tasks, every comptroller emphasizes different things. But as sweeping as the office’s responsibilities are, Hevesi expanded them. Following the discovery of staggering financial improprieties in the Rosalyn school system, Hevesi resumed routine audits of all the state’s 832 school districts.
Hevesi also used the office as “a bully pulpit, a kind of forum for an expert outsider’s observations and recommendations on executive and legislative practices with fiscal and economic implications,” said Glenn Pasanen, a professor of political science at Lehman College and writer for Gotham Gazette. In that way the office has been crucial, Pasanen said, in “opening up the too-closed system of governance in Albany.”
Hevesi tended to focus “on certain areas that were tied together by the general theme of good fiscal government,” such as the state’s debt and the public authorities, said Preston Niblack, deputy director of the New York City Independent Budget Office.
To insure that whoever took on such a range of responsibilities would be qualified to do so, Spitzer, Silver and Senator Majority Leader Joseph Bruno agreed that the legislature would select the next comptroller from a list of finalists approved by an expert panel. That group consisted of three former comptrollers: Republican State Comptroller Ned Regan, Democratic State Comptroller Carl McCall and Democratic New York City Comptroller Harrison Golden.
The governor had wanted “up to five, high-quality, nonpartisan” candidates, Ned Regan has said, adding, “We interpreted that as management experience and financial literacy.”
Goldin agreed: “The candidates we picked had substantial administrative experience and meaningful asset-management experience.”
But others question some of this reasoning. After all, Henry Stern wrote in New York Civic, “What agency or major corporation did Eliot Spitzer run before he was elected attorney general in 1998? Yet he was an excellent AG.”
Other observers see independence and integrity as key. Herbert London, the president of Hudson Institute who himself ran for comptroller in 1994, stressed that integrity was vital for anyone who manages such a huge pension fund. “You want someone you can trust – someone interested in the people of New York, the pensions of New York and the employees of New York,” he said. The best bet, he said, would be to choose someone from the private sector “not contaminated by the usual political process” and who will not be tempted to use the pension fund for their own political advantage.
There is an inherent contradiction in how New York selects its comptroller. “The governor is saying this is a job that requires special skills,” said Gerald Benjamin, a professor at SUNY New Paltz and an expert on state government. “Yet it is a job that is filled by election.” While there have been concerns about conflicts of interest by comptrollers, Benjamin said that, even though many comptrollers have not had extensive financial or management experience, “There never has been an issue that the comptroller is incompetent. They’ve gone out and hired deputies.”
Under the state constitution, if the comptroller or attorney general resigns, the state legislature, acting as a single unit, selects a replacement. Each member -- state senator or assembly member, Democrat or Republican -- gets a single vote. Given that Democrats are in the majority, Silver, the top Democrat in the legislature, was expected to play the key role in choosing the new comptroller. It was also widely assumed that the new comptroller would be a Democrat – even though many experts, harking back to Arthur Levitt in the Rockefeller administration and Regan during Mario Cuomo’s governorship, believe it makes sense for the watchdog to be from a different party than the governor.
Silver said he would work with the new governor on the issue. And for a while, he did, agreeing to set up the panel of former comptrollers to screen candidates. Eighteen people put themselves up for consideration, including five members of the Assembly, a state senator, local government officials, and a few businesspeople.
It all seemed to be moving along smoothly – and then the panel announced the finalists. They were:
Martha Stark: The only woman who formally applied, Stark is the city’s first African American finance commissioner. Stark, who grew up in Brooklyn, had several positions in the Dinkins administration, worked in the Manhattan borough president’s office and immediately before becoming finance commissioner managed millions of dollars in youth development grants at the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. As commissioner, she heads up a 2,300-person agency that collects $18 billion a year in tax revenue.
Howard Weitzman: A graduate of New York City public schools, Weitzman was elected Nassau County comptroller in 2001 and re-elected in 2005. In his official biography, he says he has worked with County Executive Tom Suozzi to “bring the country back from the brink of bankruptcy.” Before becoming comptroller, he served as mayor of Great Neck Estates, worked for the accounting firm KPMG, and founded a healthcare financial services firm and mail-service pharmaceutical company.
William Mulrow: A resident of Bronxville, he ran unsuccessfully for comptroller against Hevesi in 2002. He is an investment banker, currently managing director of Paladin Capital Group. He has also served with a number of government agencies, including the New York City Rent Guidelines Board, the Municipal Assistance Corporation for the City of New York, and the United Nations Development Corporation. While many favor the appointment of someone with such private sector experience, others question his connections to Excelsior Racing, which has been trying to win control of state horseracing revenue. Spitzer has been reported to favor Mulrow, who has been identified as a friend of the governor’s. Mulrow has sought to downplay this, saying he is “a 50-year-old guy who only met Eliot Spitzer a few years ago” and “one of many people who did vote for the governor.”
Little to none of the ensuing furor has focused on the merits of these three people. Instead it revolves around the number of people on the list and, most important, the people who are not on it.
Many observers expected the panel to pick five – not three – finalists. In coming up with the three, the panel rejected all members of the state legislature who applied for the post. This enraged many in the body, particularly those who wanted the job themselves. Some charged Spitzer had lobbied the three men on the panel, though Regan denied it. The legislators also argued that the process was stacked against legislators and that none of the panelists when they became comptroller had the kind of experience they now are saying is essential for the job.
Although five Assembly members originally applied for the post, only three still appear to be in contention. (One, Pete Grannis, has left the Assembly to become Spitzer’s environment commissioner; another, Felix Ortiz of Brooklyn, has been largely ignored in the press accounts). All Democrats, the three are:
Thomas DiNapoli: DiNapoli first held public office at age 18 as a trustee of the Mineola Board of Education. Since 1986, he has served as a member of the State Assembly from Nassau County. He chairs the Environmental Conservation Committee. There have been reports that DiNapoli is the favorite of Assembly Democrats – and Silver – for comptroller, but he has denied it. “That’s not my conclusion. We’re keeping it an open process,” he told reporters following last week’s Assembly meeting.
Joseph Morelle: A resident of Irondequoit near Rochester, Morrell was first elected to the State Assembly in 1990. On his official biography, he says he has been particularly interested in economic development issues. Following the panel’s announcement of the three candidates, Morelle, who resigned as chairman of the Monroe County Democratic Committee to seek the statewide office, issued a statement saying he still considered himself to be in the running. If the panel, he said, “made a decision to exclude candidates solely on the basis â€of their status as state legislators … then it taints the entire process and the transparency and even-handedness that was meant to define it. As long as that question remains unanswered, I remain a candidate for state comptroller.”
Richard Brodsky: A member of the State Assembly from Westchester for 24 years, Brodsky ran for state attorney general last year but dropped out because of illness in his family. As chairman of the Standing Committee on Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions, he has emerged as an outspoken critic of the state’s public authorities. Sometimes considered abrasive, Brodsky told the screening panel that that should not disqualify him from being comptroller. “"I am not unaware that it's been said that I have brought a certain roughness and directness to the (political) process," Brodsky said, but, he continued, that “speaks to a fierce allegiance to the public interest.”
Even before the panelists announced the three finalists, reports began circulating that Silver might want to select someone not on the list. On January 30, Democratic members of the Assembly met for more than six hours to mull their next move: selecting one of the three, uniting behind another candidate, or dividing. If they unite behind a single candidate, he or she would almost certainly get the job; if they fragment, Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in either house could have a role. The Assembly members did not reach a decision and so, for now, the situation remains unclear.
Many believe Silver has few good options. Even if he defied Spitzer and selected a member of the Assembly for comptroller, the governor, who is far more popular than members of the legislature, might come out ahead. He would be portrayed as having tried to challenge Albany cronyism and so he himself would “view this as losing the battle but winning the war,” an anonymous source told the New York Sun. By consenting to the screening panel “Silver agreed to the circumstances where there was the risk of this happening,” said Benjamin. “I don’t see Silver’s way out. The fundamental political point is Silver made a mistake.”
And Spitzer shows no signs of backing down. “There is a list sent up to the legislature. I fully expect that they will choose from among the members on that list. That’s it,” the governor said.
Such controversy over filling a vacant position is not unprecedented. While no public official has been removed from office in New York State since Governor William Sulzer in 1913, many have stepped down. In 1993, for example, then Comptroller Edward Regan resigned to take a position at Bard College. The state legislature selected H. Carl McCall, a former state senator and a vice president at Citibank, to replace him. McCall went on to win election to the post in 1994 and 1998. A year later, another statewide elected official, Attorney General Robert Abrams resigned, and the legislature chose one of its own, Assemblymember Oliver Koppell (now a member of the New York City Council), to fill out that term. Koppell, though, lost his bid to be elected to the post.
While the legislature chose Koppell “with less fanfare and controversy than usually accompanies the selection of a new village dog catcher,” according to Newsday, McCall’s selection proved controversial. A number of candidates vied for the job. Governor Mario Cuomo threw his support behind McCall. When the Democratic legislature formally adopted that decision, thereby making McCall the first African-American to hold statewide office, Republicans boycotted the election meeting and went to court to block McCall’s selection.
In 1993, the Times termed the whole process “highly undemocratic. No election, no public participation, just a predetermined vote by a heavily politicked legislature.”
The role played by Cuomo and the legislature was particularly troublesome, the paper said. The outgoing comptroller, Ned Regan, the Times wrote “was at his most impressive when he pushed the governor and legislature to reform sloppy and wasteful borrowing practices. Would he have done so if he owed his job to the people he challenged? Not likely.”
What is unusual in the current situation is how long the appointed comptroller, whoever it might be, will serve. Because Hevesi resigned after being re-elected but before serving a single day of his new term, the new comptroller will likely occupy the office for almost a full four-year term without the approval of the state’s voters. Under the state constitution, the next election cannot be held until the next gubernatorial election in 2010.
In contrast, a special election is being held on Long Island this week Tuesday to fill a vacant State Senate seat. Imagine the uproar if the State Senate got to make the choice, instead of the voters, wrote Yancey Roy of Gannett News Service. But voters have no role in selecting the far more powerful comptroller – unless there is a change in the state constitution. And that, wrote Roy, is “not going to happen.”
Â
Councilmember Jimmy Vacca sees something threatening his corner of the Bronx. Houses are torn down and bigger ones go up in their places. Calm neighborhoods turn noisy. Cars clog once quiet streets. The city's zoning laws are supposed to protect Throg's Neck against such overdevelopment, says Vacca, but City Hall has made it quite easy to get around them.
In the name of cutting red tape, city law currently allows architects and engineers to decide whether their own projects are in compliance with zoning regulations in many cases – a practice known as self-certification. This practice is based on the reasoning that professionals can be trusted to comply with the law themselves, and that allowing them to sign off on their own projects increases the efficiency of development – much needed in a city that is building itself up at the pace that New York is today.
But many members of the council complain that this privilege is regularly abused, and that violators are not punished. Vacca – who calls the zoning book his "bible", and who has been referred to as both the "de facto Inspector General of the Buildings Department" and the " sheriff of zoning" – is one of the most aggressive critics of such permissive policies. He refers to the self-certification as "the bane of the existence of those who are concerned about overdevelopment." People who have either misread regulations or intentionally ignore them regularly build projects that are larger than zoning laws allow for, or don't include required parking, he argues.
At its stated meeting on February 1st, the council voted on two bills introduced by Vacca. As the law is written now, even those architects and engineers who have been sanctioned for violations in the past are taken at their word when they say their projects comply with zoning regulations. The first (Intro 308-a) would prohibit those who are on probation by the state for previous violations from self-certifying projects.
The second bill (Intro 309-a) lays out punishments for those who falsely claim their projects are in compliance with zoning regulations, and requires the city to notify the state about violators, so that their past transgressions can be counted against them when they apply for renewals of state licenses.
The bills call for increased enforcement, but Council Speaker Christine Quinn said the cost, if any, would be "extraordinarily minimal," noting that the Department of Buildings' enforcement budget was increased last year. The department, which has a budget of about $90 million, reviews over 65,000 construction plans annually.
Both bills passed by votes of 47 – 0. They must be signed by the mayor to become law.
The legislation is the latest in a series of proposals coming from a council task force examining the Department of Buildings. In November, the council passed several bills addressing illegal demolition. Members of the council also introduced three new bills regarding development and construction at last week's meeting.
One of those bills (Intro 521) called for the complete elimination of the self-certification process. Several council members called for such action on the floor as they voted for the bills at hand.
Self-certification started in the 1990s as a money saving move, essentially outsourcing the job of regulation of architects and engineers from a financially strained Department to the industry itself, said Councilmember James Oddo, who led the council task force. City officials should go back to doing this job themselves, he argued. In order to do so, Oddo believes that the Department of Buildings' budget should be increased. In the meantime, he suggested banning self-certification in places where zoning changes had been made recently.
But the Bloomberg administration and Council Speaker Christine Quinn oppose the complete elimination of self-certification, saying that it will stymie development.
"I think that right now we're putting the right level of structure and punishment into the process to weed out the bad operators but allow the good operators the appropriate amount of flexibility," said Quinn. "We don't want to slow down needed and appropriate development."
The council also voted unanimously to re-landmark several buildings on the Upper East Side in the block-long development City and Suburban Homes. The buildings were built at the turn of the 20th century, as an experiment to create a quality alternative to the squalid tenements of the Lower East Side. The Board of Estimate revoked their landmark status in 1990 as a result of lobbying by current MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow, who owned the buildings at the time. The move was part of a flurry of controversial late night decisions made by the board as it closed down – a time that several council members referred to last week as its "going out of business sale."
"You don't get too many opportunities in government for do-overs, and that's what this is: a rare opportunity to right a wrong," said Jessica Lappin, chair of the subcommittee on landmarks. The buildings are in her district, and she led the council's push to have them landmarked again.
The council also voted to landmark the New York Cab Company Stables on the Upper West Side.
Before the meeting started, the council held the latest in the series of government ceremonies honoring Wesley Autrey, the man who jumped onto the subway tracks in Harlem and to save a stranger from an oncoming train. In the last several weeks, Autrey has been the guest of honor at Mayor Michael Bloomberg's State of the City address and President George Bush's nationally televised State of the Union speech. After the national television exposure, doesn't the presentation of a plague in front of a few dozen people seem anticlimactic? Councilmember Peter Vallone didn't think so.
"He has finally, finally hit the big time," Vallone said.
Â
The new governor is a mystery when it comes to housing. No one is sure what he will do about the housing issues in New York City.
In his inaugural address, Governor Eliot Spitzer was brief in his remarks on housing.
“In New York, we face the twin challenges of high home prices downstate and deteriorating housing stock upstate,” Spitzer said. He then pledged to do an inventory of public land that could be used for new housing development, look for partnerships to build employer-assisted housing and reward communities that reform their zoning laws to encourage affordable housing construction.
What few decisions Spitzer has made in recent weeks seem to have swung both ways: He upset some housing advocates when he let a big landlord off the hook with a slap on the wrist in one of his last acts as Attorney General. But many advocates were encouraged by one of his first acts as governor: He nixed the implementation of new rules, which many saw as pro-landlord, proposed during the tenure of Spitzer’s predecessor George Pataki by the state’s Division of Housing and Community Renewal.
“Pataki tried to undermine the rent laws even further than he already has,” explained Brad Lander of the Pratt Institute for Community Development. “Some of us on [Spitzer’s housing] transition committee urged the Spitzer administration to find a way to undo those things….
“You couldn’t have had a better first day. That was of enormous significance to tenants in New York City.”
Among other things, the new rules would have allowed landlords to charge two months rent as security deposit and made the removal of lead paint a cost that landlords could pass along to tenants in rent increases.
Nevertheless, Spitzer’s housing agenda is still murky. And housing advocates are hardly the only people perplexed at his goals.
“He only put out one press release about housing as far as I know” during his campaign, said Frank Ricci of the Rent Stabilization Association, the group that lobbies on behalf of thousands of property owners in New York City. “I think it’s wait and see.”
Spitzer’s agenda will become clearer in coming weeks with some important decisions:
Spitzer did talk about housing during his campaign, even if his ideas on housing were not detailed in press releases. But what did he really say? Housing advocates heard him express lukewarm support for an administrative tribunal, or repair board, to deal with repair issues. They also heard him express some interest in raising the $2,000 rent level at which a landlord can apply to deregulate an apartment upon becoming vacant.
But Ricci said the new governor chose his words carefully. On the repair board, he said, Spitzer said “if local governments pass something like that he would look at it. I think they’re very careful about the words they use and you have to respect that.”
And on rent regulation, Spitzer said he would not change them until they come up for renewal in 2011. “And he has to win an election” before that happens, Ricci pointed out.
In an email, a spokesperson for the governor said the new administration was too immersed in developing a budget to respond to questions about his views on housing issues.
Housing advocates hold a pretty dim view of the state’s housing agency, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal. Perhaps unsurprisingly, landlords are not so displeased with the agency, which, among other things, enforces the rules that govern rent regulated apartments. In New York City , rent regulated apartments make up almost half of all rentals.
“At least it works now – you get a decision,” Ricci said. “And that’s important…. I don’t know what his philosophy is on (DHCR). I would hope that he would recognize that under [former Governor Mario] Cuomo we had an 80,000-case backlog and that didn’t help tenants or landlords.”
Once Spitzer names a commissioner, the agency’s approach will come more clearly into focus: Will it seek to curtail abuses of the rent laws? Or will it seek to enact new rules for rent regulated apartments that, advocates say, will create new opportunities for landlords to get people out of their homes?
The commissioner will have some influence on the whole future of rent regulated apartments, which are disappearing at a fast rate thanks to the vacancy decontrol provisions enacted in 1997. If Spitzer does indeed wait until 2011 to review the laws – the next time the laws come up for renewal – the debate could be moot, advocates have said: There simply will not be many rent regulated apartments left.
Currently, when the rent on a rent stabilized apartment reaches $2,000, the landlord can seek to deregulate the apartment if it becomes vacant or if the household income is higher than $175,000 for two consecutive years.
“My understanding is that he is not eager to broadly open the rent laws before 2011 but this notion of indexing the rents is something he would consider now,” Lander said. The governor’s administration “doesn’t consider that to be a reopening of the rent laws.”
The first budget Spitzer drafts – which he will deliver to legislators on January 31 – will also be revealing. A report by Lander’s office, the Pratt Center for Community Development, urged the new governor to do something about the housing affordability crisis that is affecting communities across the state. In 1998, the report said, the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the state was $818, but by 2006 it had risen to $1,026 a month. Incomes did not keep pace.
Homelessness in New York City is at record levels while upstate landlords are abandoning properties, the report added.
Lander said he would not expect too much from Spitzer’s first budget.
“Everyone knows the first year’s budget has a lot of constraints,” he said. “The mayor’s housing plan did not emerge in his first budget. What I am hoping is we can see something that is a down payment.”
Lander hopes Spitzer will increase the funds available to finance affordable housing and “look hard” at the reserves that the state’s Housing Finance Administration and mortgage agency, Sonny Mae, have on hand. These funds could also be used to finance the construction of affordable housing, he said.
Some are also hoping the new governor helps the city address problems with its two-year-old rent subsidy program, Housing StabilityPlus. The city has been using the subsidy to help families in city shelters who have public assistance cases find permanent housing. Advocates have raised many questions about the program and a recent expose by the Daily News led State Senator Bill Perkins, a former City Councilmember, to propose legislation to cut state funding for the subsidy because of lead paint violations in some of the apartments.
Instead of cutting the subsidy, however, Spitzer could help the city by eliminating “step-downs” – drops in the subsidy payment of 20 percent per year until it expires in the fifth year. City officials have said it has urged state officials to make the change and some advocates are hoping City Hall makes the subsidy open to low-income working families who are not on public assistance.
Spitzer’s first budget could also come to the rescue of the city’s public housing authority, the largest in the nation. Spitzer could restore state funding for the authority, which his predecessor cut in 1998.
The New York City Housing Authority is home to over 400,000 New Yorkers but has seen its budget slashed by the federal government. Last year, the city came to the authority’s rescue, contributing $120 million to cover its deficit. But this year things are even worse: the federal contribution is set to fall by another 30 percent. The authority’s deficit will be close to $150 million again.
In October, the New York City Housing Authority came up with a plan to cover the deficit, but it has outraged advocates: the agency proposed using 8,400 Section 8 vouchers to pay rents in 21 of its developments that were built with city and state money. Using vouchers to do that would effectively reduce the pool of vouchers available to low-income families that have been waiting over a decade for the federal rent subsidy.
City Council Member Rosie Mendez sharply questioned the agency’s general manager about the plan at a recent public hearing, which was overflowing with angry tenants and advocates. But she emphasized that the answer to the housing authority’s problem lie outside of the room.
“We’ve been lobbying as legislators” for the state to restore its operating subsidy, she said during a break. “We’re hopeful that finally the state will step up.”
Joe Lamport is the assistant director of the City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court, a coalition of community housing organizations. Â
More than four years after Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, there are four voting machines competing for the honor of being New York City's exclusive new voting system.
Over the last few weeks, the manufacturers have been demonstrating these machines to the public throughout the five boroughs; New Yorkers were afforded the opportunity to test the machines and provide feedback at two public hearings conducted by the New York City Board of Elections.
All four machines have voter-verified paper audit trails. They are either optical scan machines, much like the fill-in-the-bubble scantron system used to administer standardized exams, or direct recording electronic machines (DREs), more closely resembling ATM cash machines.
One of the following machines will replace the city's treasured lever machines, called Shoup 3.2, which have been in use since 1962. When this will happen, however, is unclear. While most other states scrambled to meet the 2006 deadline for new machine implementation, New York State did not leave the counties, or the vendors, with enough time to do so. New York City is now in the unenviable position of having to prepare for the nightmare scenario of unveiling new machines in 2008 -- in the midst of an open election for president.
Diebold Optical Scan with Ballot Marking Device
Year Company Founded: 1859
States with counties that use their systems: Georgia , Maryland , Alaska , Arizona , Ohio.
Company Website: www.dieboldes.com
The Diebold Optical Scan machine scans and counts voter-marked paper ballots that are filled out by voters in a private booth at the poll site. Voters are notified when their ballot contains "overvotes" (when more than the allowed selections have been made in an individual race) or "undervotes" (when a voter has not marked a choice of all their selections in an individual race.) Undervotes and overvotes are often collectively referred to as residual votes. The voter can choose to eject their ballot and correct any residual votes found on the ballot or submit it as is.
The system includes a ballot marking device for voters who are not able, or choose not, to fill out their paper ballot by hand. The ballot marker, through one of several technological advances, allow disabled voters to record their vote in private.
ES&S Model 100 Precinct Ballot Counter (Optical Scanner) with Ballot Marking Device
Year Company Founded: 1969
States with counties that use their systems: Illinois , North Dakota , South Dakota , Oklahoma , Rhode Island , Nebraska , Alabama , North Carolina , and New Mexico , California , Florida , Texas , Hawaii
Company Website: www.essvote.com
The ES&S model functions much like other optical scanners allowing voters to fill out a paper ballot and feed through a scanner to be tabulated. The ES&S model features an LCD display that notifies the voter if an overvote or undervote has been made on the ballot. In the case of an overvote the voter is able to submit the ballot as is, thereby voiding their vote for that race, or eject the ballot and receive a second ballot to make their selections again.
The ES&S machine turned out to better communicate residual votes to voters by displaying the number of undervotes that appeared on the ballot. After scanning his or her ballot, if the machine found undervotes, the voter is prompted to either eject the ballot to make corrections or continue on leaving the undervote as is. In addition, the machines can be programmed to go through each of the undervotes on the ballot, allowing the voter to eject it or continue on. This feature allows voters to select to undervote on a specific race without unintentionally undervoting on other races that may follow.
Sequoia's AVC Advantage Plus Full Face DRE
Year Company Founded: More than 100 years ago
States with counties that use their systems: Florida, Washington , California and Colorado
Company Website: http://www.sequoiavote.com/index.php
Sequoia's DRE model for New York City features a four panel touch screen voting machine. Voters make their selections, which are identified by a check mark, and can review their ballot on a paper receipt before it is cast. The voter is notified of any undervotes they may have made as they are taken to a display with all of their selections for review; undervoted races are highlighted in red. At that time the voter can go back to the ballot and make corrections. Like the lever system, voters cannot overvote in a race, as they have to deselect their choice in order to make a new one.
One of Sequoia's strongest features is the way the VVPT is marked to distinguish cast ballots from invalid ballots. The Sequoia DRE marks spoiled ballots by printing VOIDED at the top of the receipt after a voter chooses to make corrections to their selections. To decrease the likelihood of human error in the event of a hand paper recount, differentiating voided and valid votes with a quick and easy identifier not only makes hand counting more accurate but helps voters feel more confident that there vote is represented accurately.
Avante Vote-TrakkerTM EVC308-FF DRE
Year Founded: unknown
States with counties that use their systems: California ,
Company Website: www.avantetech.com
Avante's full face DRE displays the ballot on a single touch screen panel. Voter's choices are highlighted in yellow, and before casting their ballot voters can review their choices on a paper receipt. Undervotes are highlighted in pink before the voter casts their ballot, allowing for corrections to be made. As the voter makes all of their possible choices in undervoted races, the windows are automatically un-highlighted, letting the voter keep track of their undervotes. The system eliminates overvotes by automatically updating voters' choices. If a voter already selected a candidate for governor and makes a correction, the new selection is highlighted yellow and the old selection is un-highlighted.
Unlike the Sequoia model, the Vote-Trakker identifies invalid ballots with ballots cast by using distinctive numerical codes. The Avante system of separates ballots using replacement (1) or replacement (2) with (1) or (2) at the end of the voters numerically coded ballot rather than firmly noting a valid vote. During a hand recount it seems these receipts would be more susceptible to human error, even if using the program within the machine that identifies valid and invalid ballots.
Doug Israel is policy director, and Andrea Senteno program associate, at Citizens Union Foundation, which publishes Gotham Gazette. Â
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he would do lots of things in his State of the City address last week.
There were the little things, promises to:
• retool 911 so it can accept photos of crime scenes from cell phones;
• increase funding for a program that sends nurses to consult first time mothers;
• expand the Civilian Complaint Review Board;
• fill out forms for low-income New Yorkers so they can claim federal tax credits;
• lead a pack of gun weary American mayors as they descend on Washington to demand changes in federal law.
And then there were the big things:
• a $1 billion tax relief plan focused primarily on property tax cuts;
• further changes to the structure of the education system.
Public officials march out such promises every January in their State of the (nation, state, city, or borough) speeches. Governor Eliot Spitzer gave his State of the State address earlier this month; President George Bush will give his State of the Union on Tuesday; and Council Speaker Christine Quinn will give her own State of the City soon.
Mayor Bloomberg started his speech this year by apologizing for one promise he didn't follow through on – there was no Subway Series in 2006. But many of the other things he mentioned last year were either breezed over or not mentioned at all. The city did not pick an architect to design a plan for Governors Island or a developer to revamp Willets Point, and didn't break ground on Atlantic Yards. Despite Bloomberg's promise, the Reptile Wing of the Staten Island Zoo has still not reopened.
Other areas that Bloomberg has made a big deal about got scant mention. Arguably the biggest initiative to come out of last year's speech was the city's anti-poverty efforts, yet the mayor barely touched on the year-long campaign that followed. Nor did he spend more than a few words on his plan to create long-term sustainability policies.
This week we take a look at the two areas the mayor did focus on:
TAX CUTS: The mayor says his property tax relief plan will benefit individual New Yorkers and spark the economy, but economists say it will hardly be noticed.
EDUCATION: After four years, Bloomberg is reorganizing the schools again, but do the changes address the problems that still persist in the city’s public schools? Â
At each of the City Council's stated meetings, council members introduce bills, most of which will never become laws (for the process by which bills become laws, click here). As a regular feature, Gotham Gazette discusses some of the legislation proposed at each meeting.
Members of the City Council proposed the creation of a bicycle task force, and asked for increased funding public housing units and transportation benefits for employees at their stated meetings on January 3 and 9.
Bicycle Task Force
Council Member Alan J. Gerson proposed Introduction 498 to create a bicycle safety task force for New York City at its January 3 meeting. Arguing that bicycle use improves personal health and reduces traffic congestion, Gerson hopes the task force will help reduce bicycle related accidents.
Two hundred twenty-five bicyclists died in crashes between 1996 and 2005, according to a report issued by several city agenceis. The report also found 97 percent of bicyclists who died were not wearing a helmet.
By establishing a group to review bicycle routes, patterns and safety the Council will better understand how to improve New York City’s bicycle program. This would be done by changing several bicycle regulations, funding educational campaigns to promote bicycle safety, and improving infrastructure for bicycle lanes and parking. Once established, the task force would develop recommendations on how the city could accommodate bikers safely and practically.
"The idea is to build off the mayor’s initiative on the five borough bicycle paths and get the right people together with the right background and expertise to make important decisions on bicycle safety in the city,” Gerson said. “We’re a busy, crowded city and if we want to make room for bikes we need to do it methodically and scientifically to fully analyze our options.”
New York State built 12,500 apartments in 15 public housing developments throughout the city between 1958 and 1974. While these developments were originally financed with state funds, Albany has not contributed money for operating expenses since 1998. New York City Housing Authority, a city agency, manages the units.
According to Dilan, it costs about $62 million a year to operate the 15 developments. In fiscal 2007, city officials put $120 million in the budget for the long-term viability of the city's public housing. But If the management does not receive any financial assistance, argues Dilan, moderate-income families may see rent hikes, and all tenants may have to deal with reduction in services.
In Resolution 682 Dilan and Mendez are asking state officials to help avoid this, by asking the state to New York State to renew its financial support for the developments.
Encouraging the use of mass transportation is essential in reducing traffic congestion and pollution in the city, according to Council Member John C. Liu. With this in mind, Lui is calling upon the United States Congress to increase public transportation benefits for commuting employees.
The current law allows commuting employees to use up to $105 per month for public transportation, tax-free. Lui wants to increase the monthly cap to $205 with Resolution 683.
This resolution would encourage the use of mass transportation while reducing commuting expenses, especially for the people who ride the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad because their monthly commutes may cost more than the $105 they are currently allowed.
Â
Every two weeks the New York City Council holds its "Stated Meeting" to introduce and pass legislation. As a regular feature, Gotham Gazette covers these meetings.
A controversial $230 million plan to build four schools on a toxic site in the Bronx will go ahead with added attention and public input regarding safety concerns, after a unanimous vote by the City Council at its Stated Meeting on January 9. The council delayed a vote on the project a month ago due to opposition from several members led by Maria del Carmen Arroyo, who represents the area.
The city's School Construction Authority plans to build two high schools, a middle school, and a charter school for 6th to 8th graders on the 6.6 acre site on Concourse Village West, between East 153rd and 156th streets. In all, the schools with accommodate about 2,400 students. The site, a former rail yard, was contaminated by a nearby dry cleaner and manufactured gas plant.
The authority original planned for a $30 million clean up, but an independent environmental consultant hired by community groups said that this might not be sufficient. Several council members from the Bronx said they opposed the plan, and in December the administration withdrew its application pending negotiations over the cleanup.
In an agreement reached late Monday evening, the administration agreed to consider the consultant's recommendations, which will be completed later this month. Administration officials will have the option of declining to implement these measures, but can only do so after explaining them during a public review process. The Bloomberg administration has also agreed to monitor for contamination at two nearby schools, PS 156 and PS 151, and the state Department of Environmental Conservation will clean a nearby site that is contributing to the contamination in the area.
Council members who initially opposed the plan praised the administration for compromising on the issues, and said they were satisfied. The council approved it 45 to 0.
David Palmer of the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, who worked with the community critics to bring in an outside consultant, said that it would have been better to get the report before approving the project, but was pleased that the public's safety concerns were taken into consideration.
"The public process sets a strong precedent for future school siting proposals on toxic properties," he said. "Given the problem of overcrowding schools, and the lack of available clean land in New York City, the issue is likely to keep coming up."
Indeed, the council said that it would begin work with the administration immediately to change the school siting process to make it more transparent. The current process allows for less community input the city's standard review for land use projects, so that much-needed schools can be fast-tracked. Council Speaker Christine Quinn said that she agrees with this general outline, but that community concerns must be better integrated into process.
"The point is including the neighborhoods where these schools may go as early as possible in the process," she said. " Then if there is a site that there is a lot of opposition to that will be out there early … so we don't end up in a situation like this when we need an extension."
The council also passed a bill (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/textfiles/Int%200495-2006.htm?CFID=7007&CFTOKEN=92452565 Intro 495-a) that would set various deadlines for various actions to be taken by city officials, including the mayor's submission of his preliminary budget (February 12), Mayor's Management Report (February 23), and 10-year capital plan (March 28). That bill was passed 45 – 0.
Also, several council members opposed a council vote to http://www.nysun.com/article/46433 sell two townhouses in Boerum Hill for below market value and to give tax breaks to the buyers. The sale was part of an existing agreement between the city and the federal government intended to revamp properties in struggling neighborhoods. David Yassky argued that real estate developers in the trendy Brooklyn neighborhood didn't need the incentives.
The proposal passed, with 39 yes votes, three no votes (Yassky, Alan, Gerson, and James Vacca), and three council members abstaining (Gail Brewer, Bill de Blasio, and Letitia James).
>
The City Council attempted to address concerns that the city's power supply may soon be overwhelmed at its meeting on January 3rd, by passing a bill that would require city officials to consider installing on-site energy generators in city-owned properties to reduce the strain on the power supply in the five boroughs.
New York City has been experiencing record energy demand over the last five years, prompting concerns that insufficient power supply could lead to higher prices, blackouts, and brownouts. A task force on energy estimates that the overall energy supply for New York City will be adequate only until 2012.
New power plants may be necessary, but building them could be technically and politically difficult; new power plants could also be damaging environmentally. Supporters of the bill believe having certain buildings create their own energy could ease stress on the system.
Intro 18-a would require the Department of Citywide Administrative Services to assess whether it could install on-site power generation systems on properties owned by city government that use a certain minimum amount of energy (a peak of 500 kilowatts). These properties include schools, public housing, facilities of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and office buildings. The council does not have the power to make such a requirement of private property owners.
Such on-site power systems would be required to be cleaner than natural gas power plants, and could use wind or solar power as well as fuel cell technology. The assessment would determine whether such projects are technically possible and economically feasible. It would have to be completed by January 1, 2008, and would be repeated once every five years.
The bill passed by a vote of 47 - 0 - 2. Councilmembers Diane Reyna and Larry Seabrook were absent.
The meeting was the council's annual "charter meeting", which the city charter requires the council hold on the first Wednesday of every calendar year. It functions like a regular stated meeting. The power bill was the only piece of legislation considered.
Â
After jumping onto the subway tracks to save a stranger, hero construction worker Wesley Autrey was lavished with gifts and acclaim, including a ceremony at City Hall at which Mayor Michael Bloomberg presented him with a Bronze Medallion – the city's highest honor for civic achievement – and some advice.
Aim for the White House, Bloomberg said; "we need another presidential candidate."
Bloomberg was joking, of course. It has been hard not to hear about the four New Yorkers who are already crowding the field in next year's presidential race (five if you count Al Sharpton, which few people seem ready to do). Senator Hillary Clinton, former mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former governor George Pataki, and Mayor Bloomberg himself are all coyly considering campaigns, though it's not certain how many of them will pull together serious efforts. The Democrats announced last week that they won't hold their 2008 convention in New York City, but you would have to forgive someone for thinking that, as New York magazine put it, "the road to the White House is an extension of Park Avenue."
It has been awhile since the days when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in the White House, eager to hear new ideas about how he could help his fellow New Yorkers. The last New Yorkers to head a major party ticket was Thomas Dewey in 1948. Since his near-miss, no New Yorker has even gotten close. Perhaps the closest was Senator Bobby Kennedy's 1968 campaign – a bid that ended in assassination.
Not coincidental to this dry spell, say many experts, is the persistent anti-urban bent of the federal government over the last several decades, which has drained New York of resources and made being from the Northeast a political liability for political aspirants. When former president Gerald Ford died last month, it brought up memories of the most famous headline in New York newspaper history: FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD. Ford never actually said those words, but in the eyes of many New Yorkers, that hostility has barely faded over the last thirty years.
Suddenly, though, New Yorkers are banging at the doors of the White House - and, perhaps just as significantly, are in control of some of the most powerful positions in Congress.
Is this simply a coincidence, the confluence of several oversized personalities at the same time and place? Or does it reflect New York's return to prominence in national politics? Either way, what would New York get out of having one of its own in the White House?
Among political circles it is considered a bad strategy for a candidate to announce that he is running for president until he has spent several months - or years - campaigning, seeing how it feels and deciding whether he really has a shot. No New Yorker, then, is officially running yet for president in 2008. But at least four are "considering it":
Michael Bloomberg: Democrat-turned-Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he is not running for president, but his name is always included on the list of New York candidates as an independent who will appeal to voters looking for competence over party affiliation. This is partially because the mayor and his senior staff seem to go out of their way to encourage such talk. Bloomberg has said he would make a great president as long ago as 1997, and his close advisors openly discuss him as a viable candidate. Bloomberg himself recently pointed out that he could spend more of his own money in a presidential run than many major party candidates could raise, shortly before he dressed up like Bruce Springsteen at a staff holiday party and sung his own version of "Born to Run." But when asked about his intentions, Bloomberg just smiles and asks what he has to do to convince people that he's not interested.
Hillary Clinton: Polls show Senator Hillary Clinton as the favorite for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008. She hasn't officially announced her candidacy, but cynics say it started in 2000, when Clinton moved to New York, switched loyalties from the Cubs to the Yankees, and was elected senator. Since then, she has amassed a huge pool of money, and is enlisting the help of well-respected consultants for her undeclared campaign. Hers is one of the most-recognized names in American politics. One of Clinton's most cited political liabilities is that her reputation as an angry liberal is off-putting to important moderate Republican voters - so she spent $36 million on her 2006 Senate reelection campaign, making sure to win over upstate Republicans.
Rudolph Giuliani: After September 11, 2001, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani became a national star, his troubled legacy lost among the accolades as a hero and big city crime fighter. He may be hampered in the Republican primary, however, by his New York-like views on abortion, gay rights, and gun control, the public turmoil in his personal life, or his reluctance to abandon a lucrative career in the private sector. Giuliani's own concerns about these political liabilities were dragged through the press recently when private campaign documents were leaked to the Daily News. Giuliani's ability to inspire strong feelings is reflected in one high profile endorsement he has already received for next year's primary: Congressman Charlie Rangel said that he would love for the former mayor to be the Republican candidate so he could attack Giuliani's record as mayor. As a running mate for Giuliani, Rangel suggested his disgraced former police commissioner, Bernard Kerik.
George Pataki: Former Governor George Pataki is not officially running for president just yet; his spokesperson says that he's "weighing the options with his family." But the former governor has quit his job; visited Baghdad and then gone on national television to discuss what he learned; and lavished attention on the states where success in presidential primaries can light a fire under a campaign (he visited Iowa no less than nine times in 2006, and raised money for Republican candidates in New Hampshire). Pataki's efforts have been met with near-universal mockery. Conservatives attack his record on taxes as governor, and his 12-year term in Albany is widely described as a time of gridlock and dysfunction. The best chance most political observers give him is a shot at latching onto a more viable candidate's ticket as the vice presidential candidate.
It is considered very unlikely that all of these candidates will make a serious attempt at the White House. In December, Newsday actually printed the odds that it gave to each candidate lasting until the presidential nominating committees next summer. Clinton was given the best odds (one in three), followed by Giuliani (one in 10), Pataki (one in 50), and Bloomberg (one in 150).
In theory, at least, the 2008 presidential race could come down to a contest between three New Yorkers - a Republican, a Democrat, and an independent. But, to play with Newsday's numbers, the chances of that happening are 0.07 percent at best.
New York formed a special relationship with the office of the president immediately, when George Washington was sworn in as the first person to hold the office at Federal Hall on Wall Street in 1789. Of course, the first president also advocated burning the city to the ground during the Revolutionary War. The city on the Potomic that took his name, some New Yorkers would argue, has adopted that proposal as the basis for its attitude in dealing with the city on the Hudson in recent decades.
Four presidents were actually born in New York State - Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt - and at least one more was elected as a New Yorker (Grover Cleveland, who was born in New Jersey, but was raised in Buffalo and eventually became governor). The city was the site of Abraham Lincoln's famous 1860 speech that helped propel him into office, as well as six national conventions. Fourteen presidents have lived in New York City at some point. Two are around today: Bill Clinton, who opened an office in Harlem after leaving office, and Ulysses S. Grant, who is buried on Riverside Drive.
The City's Declining Political Fortunes
Since Franklin Delano Roosevelt died in office in 1945, New Yorkers have been kept out of the White House - and have seen their clout in national politics diminish significantly. In part this is a function of population - both the city and the state make up a relatively smaller proportion of the country's population than they did during the Roosevelt years. Most older cities face the same dilemma. While this does reflect population shifts that began after World War II when the creation of the national highway system led to the birth of the suburbs, there are other causes as well. Politicians see vying for the votes of suburban swing voters as a better use of their energy, knowing that urban areas are full of predictably Democratic voters. There has also been a shift in the prevailing ideology of American politics away from the liberalism associated with New York. Few national politicians want to be tarred as a "Northeastern Liberal."
New York does remain central, however, in the national fundraising scene. New York City-area residents gave more money to national political candidates in 2004 than any other metropolitan area; only the District of Columbia gave more in 2006.
With New York looking to contribute more than just funding in the 2008 presidential election, politicos and policy wonks are discussing whether the city and the state are regaining central roles in national politics.
"There's no question that New York has come back from the political wilderness," said political consultant Hank Sheinkopf. He argues that the stereotype that New York is out of step with the rest of the country is inaccurate, but believes that 9/11 - not a realization that New York is not a "bastion of left-wing insanity" - is the driving force behind the city's improving political fortunes.
Presidential hopefuls aside, New York's voice in Washington has recently gotten much louder. Senator Charles Schumer is credited as one of the masterminds of the Democratic takeover in both houses of Congress, making him an incredibly influential member of the newly empowered Democratic Party. With Democratic control over chairmanships of committees - one of the most important markers of congressional clout - New Yorkers have gained immensely. Perhaps most notable is Representative Charles Rangel's rise to the top of the House Ways and Means committee, arguably the most important committee in the house. Other key committee assignments are:
• Nydia Velazquez's new role as head of the house's Small Business Committee;
• Schumer's place on the senate's Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee;
• Senator Clinton's assignment on the Health, Education Labor and Pensions Commitee
• Representatives Gary Ackerman, Gregory Meeks, Joe Crowley, Vito Fosella, Carolyn Maloney and Velazquez's seats on the the Financial Services Committee.
• and Jerrold Nadler and Anthony Weiner's positions on the house Transportation Committee.
If the shift in power from Republicans to Democrats has made New York much more powerful, the factors that have reduced its power have hardly disappeared. New York State is now the country's third most populous behind California and Texas. By the time of the next census, it is expected to fall behind Florida as well. Doug Muzzio, a professor of public affairs at Baruch College, believes that "the sun has set" on the era when big cities drove the country's political agenda.
But what about all those presidential candidates? Muzzio doesn't see them as evidence of any shift.
"I think it has more to do with the particular people rather than some larger contextual change about New York and its place in American politics," he said. "I don't want to sound like a professor, but it's not systemic. It's idiosyncratic."
New York enjoyed its best relationship with Washington in the 1930s and 1940s, when Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia joked that Roosevelt's White House was "no further than the Bronx." The president acknowledged his soft spot for the mayor and the city. "[LaGuardia] comes to Washington and tells me a sad story. The tears run down my cheeks and tears run down his cheeks and the first thing I know, he Has wangled another fifty million dollars," he is quoted as saying in Thomas Kessner's definitive biography of LaGuardia.
Most political observers acknowledge that the city will not see another era like that, when federal money was used to build the Triborough Bridge, LaGuardia Airport, and the Lincoln Tunnel.
But the federal government's affects New York City on every issue from education to mass transit to health care to housing to immigration.
Bringing a uniquely New York perspective to these issues would almost certainly benefit the city, said Gerald Benjamin, dean of liberal arts and sciences at SUNY New Paltz.
"It would be a convergence of a New York presidency with the placement of New York congressional leaders in key positions that would be critically important," he said. "We've already begun to see that happening."
As New York's representatives grab more influential committee posts, they are eying pet projects and issues that have not gained traction to this point. On her first day as chair of the small business committee, Nydia Velazquez introduced a bill that would encourage bodegas to carry healthier foods in low-income neighborhoods. Jerrold Nadler, who sits on the transportation committee, will likely step up his decades-long pursuit of a freight tunnel under New York Harbor.
The main area where New York seems to be able to swing its political clout immediately is on homeland security funding. Since 9/11, New York officials have complained that this money has been used as political pork, " spread across the country like peanut butter," as Mayor Bloomberg put it in testimony before Congress last week. There have been indications that changes are in the works, though. The Department of Homeland Security announced recently that New York and other major urban areas will get 55 percent of the $747 million pool of homeland security grants, and that New York and New Jersey will get the lion's share of a separate pool of grants for port and rail security.
New York's congressmen feel more confident about getting things done in Washington after November's elections. But Congressman Nadler says the delegation's efforts have limits if they don't have an ally in the White House.
"We have more power. We have more influence. But we don't control," he recently told the New York Sun.
While some changes in Washington could be tracked through hard numbers, experts also predict that having a president from New York would inspire a major change in the attitude of the federal government. This would not necessarily be quantifiable, but would be reflected in the overall approach that the federal government took on all domestic issues. "Simply a recognition of the problems that New York City and other urban jurisdictions face, whether it's transportation, infrastructure, schools, etc., any one of those issues would be salient to any of the four" presumed candidates, said Muzzio.
Muzzio and others have pointed out that a Democratic president would be more likely to form a close alliance with the city's overwhelmingly Democratic congressional delegation. But in at least one way it wouldn't matter which party the president came from.
"You won't have a national government run by people who question whether New York is part of the United States," said Benjamin.
Â
The crowd clapped when Governor Eliot Spitzer announced in State of the State Speech last week that he would seek to reform Albany. But cynics could easily note that applause is cheap.
Sitting behind Spitzer as he spoke was Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, under federal investigation for misusing state funds. Joining Bruno on the podium was Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Together, the two men have set much of the tone in Albany for the last 12 years and preside over a legislature where two members are under criminal indictment, two have had recent run-ins with the law for assault, and numerous others have left under a cloud.
Equally worrisome to many reformers are actions that are perfectly legal. Lax regulations and violations of what laws that do exist have contributed to Albany’s reputation as one of the worst state capitals in the nation.
“You read in every newspaper how many people have been investigated and indicted and convicted,” said Suzanne Novak, deputy director of the Brennan Center for Justice, “There are many factors that go into this,” Novak said but, for starters, the state does not have strict enough laws and does not adequately enforce those laws that it does have.
Eliot Spitzer came to Albany promising to change that. And in his first days in office he began taking concrete steps to do that. But can he really succeed?
Since the Brennan Center issued a report in 2004 which branded New York’s legislative process the most dysfunctional in the nation, the litany of woes facing state government have become familiar. Three men -- the governor, the speaker and the Senate majority leader -- control the legislative process with individual members often barely knowing what they are voting on. State legislators are allowed to have outside income and even keep it secret – as Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver does – as long as it does not conflict with their public duties. The legislature allocates tens of million of dollars for member items—pet ventures or pork barrel schemes—with little to no public scrutiny.
A redistricting process controlled by the legislature guarantees that lines will be drawn to protect incumbents, giving jobs for life to even the most mediocre Assembly members and state senators. Candidates assured of re-election rake in contributions and use the money for luxury cars and sometimes even legal fees. The state's system of selecting judges has been ruled unconstitutional. New York has more lobbyists per legislator – 20 for each one – than any other state in the county, according to the Center for Public Integrity.
And the rules here appear looser than in many other states. For example, even though he pleaded guilty to a felony, former State Comptroller Alan Hevesi will get to keep most of his state pension. The Albany blog Capitol Confidential contrasted that with Massachusetts, where former House Speaker Thomas Finneran was “almost certain” to lose his $30,000 a year pension after pleading guilty to obstruction of justice charges.
The Albany culture, former State Assembly member Nelson Denis wrote this month, features “a bipartisan Favor Bank built on state contracts, the disposition of state lands, and patronage spending by various public authorities. Every year, Democrats and Republicans posture over their differences, while tacitly collaborating to accommodate the permanent interests of each.”
In his first days in office, Spitzer tried to take on some of these practices. He issued five executive orders aimed at ethics, stressed government reform in both his inaugural speech and State of the State address. And Attorney General Andrew C Cuomo also sounded the theme
Here is some of what they will do:
Set standards for state workers: In his first day in office, Spitzer issued an executive order barring state employees from accepting gifts designed to influence their decisions, from using state property for personal use, from hiring relatives, and from taking jobs as lobbyists for two years after leaving state government.
Limit the role of politics in state government: Another executive order would bar some state employees from making campaign contributions to the governor and lieutenant governor and would not allow officials to ask prospective employees and contractors about their political affiliations. It also bans elected officials and candidates from appearing in publicly funded ads for state agencies. So, Eliot and Silda Wall Spitzer will not reprise Libby and George Pataki’s roles in “I Love New York” ads.
Regulate campaign finance: In his State of the State speech, Spitzer announced he would submit a package of measures to limit campaign contributions in the state, restrict donations from lobbyists and corporations and begin steps toward instituting public financing of campaigns.
Change the redistricting process: Spitzer said he would submit legislation to establish an independent nonpartisan commission to draw legislative districts in New York. (The next redistricting would follow the 2010 census.) “Until this happens,” he pledged, “I will veto any proposal that reflects partisan gerrymandering.”
Streamline the courts: The governor said he would submit two constitutional amendments aimed at improving New York’s courts – one to consolidate the patchwork of courts in the state’s judicial system and the other to implement a merit process for the selection of judges.
Review member items: Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has said he would go over the 6,000 expenditures on the list to make sure they met the standards for spending public funds.
Such proposal are “ overwhelmingly matters of common sense that would shake [Albany] to its very foundations,” the Daily News said in an editorial, adding Spitzer’s reform proposals are “ambitious and screwed on straight.”
And many believe they will have an effect. “It’s hard to get things through in Albany, but we now have someone who’s going to push for change,” Novak said. “As attorney general, Eliot Spitzer did not tolerate people not obeying the law.”
But he faces an exceedingly difficult task. Already people were seeing danger signs. Novak notes, that at the same time they applauded Spitzer’s calls for reform, members of the Assembly adopted the same old rules that have long guided their way of doing business. And Senate Republicans again selected Joseph Bruno as their leader – even though he is under federal investigation. Only one GOP senator, John Bonacic of New Paltz, publicly protested the move. "He's been damaged and this ongoing investigation will impair his ability to lead," Bonacic told a local paper. "He should step down as majority leader, even if it's temporarily, until the cloud is removed."
Cleaning up Albany is “a lot harder than cleaning up Wall Street,” former State Senate Seymour Lachman has said because, while the financial world is “answerable to a market of investors, there’s almost no accountability in the State Legislature.”
What can Spitzer do “with 211 legislators who have such a fine sense of perversity that they applaud when he vows to do away with the very basis of their jobs,” asked Schenectady Gazette columnist Carl Strock. “I don’t think you can do much with a gang like that. They will pat you on the pat and pump your hand and proclaim themselves friends of reform all the way to the next wine and cheese reception where they will shake down lobbyists from the hospital and nursing home industry, the tobacco industry, the teachers’ union or whatever other outfit has big money to hand out.”
As lax as the laws on state government are, some New York politicians have managed to break them. Forget the tough streets of New York City, say some pundits, the hallowed halls of the Capitol boast the state’s highest crime rate.
Here are some of those who have been convicted or indicted.
--Alan Hevesi: The state comptroller, a former member of the state assembly and city comptroller, was coasting to re-election and a seemingly long career in office last fall when his little known Republican opponent got a tip that Hevesi was using a state employee to drive around his ailing wife. Hevesi reimbursed the state, apologized and managed to win re-election, but he could not stave off opposition from one-time ally Spitzer and the feeling that a man who defrauded state government is probably not the best person to insure other public official and agencies spend public money properly. Hevesi resigned three days before Christmas, pleading guilty to a felony charge but probably avoiding any jail time. The legislature will appoint a replacement, although Spitzer is expected to play a major role in the process.
--Joseph Bruno: The state’s most powerful Republican and the majority leader of the State Senate, Bruno announced last month that he is under federal investigation for steering state money to a businessman and friend who showered the majority leader with money and favors. So far no indictments have been issued.
--Efrain Gonzalez: The state senator from the Bronx, a Democrat, faces criminal charges for having spent some $400,000 in state funds for his own uses, including running his cigar company, improvements to residences, Yankees tickets and jewelry. Gonzalez allegedly funneled state money to Pathways for Youth, a Bronx charity and then took money from the charity. Although he was under indictment on similar charges in November, voters re-elected him.
--Brian McLaughlin: Last fall, McLaughlin, then an assembly member from Queens and president of the New York City Central Labor Council, was indicted on 43 charges that could send him to jail for decades. The 186-page indictment alleges that McLaughlin took some $2.2 million from the government, unions, contractors and even a Little League team and used the money to finance such items as home renovations, country club membership and marina fees, school tuition, rents and other items. About 10 months before he was charged, McLaughlin had announced he would not seek re-election to the legislature and he has since been relieved of his labor post, at least for the time being.
--Diane Gordon: The Democratic assemblywoman from Brooklyn faces criminal charges for seeking a $500,000 bribe in return for helping a developer get a $2 million city lot. The bulk of the bribe was to be a $500,000 home that was not even in Gordon’s district. Although she is awaiting trial on charges that could send her to jail for up to 15 years, she was re-elected in November.
--Ada Smith: After several instances of erratic and even violent behavior, the state senator from Queens was charged last year with throwing hot coffee at an aide’s face. Smith was found guilty of the charges and unlike most Albany offenders actually lost her bid for re-election. In a rare slap at an incumbent, voters in her district – apparently fed up with being represented by someone tabloids tagged â€the wild woman of Queens” – elected Shirley Huntley to replace Smith.
--Clarence Norman: The onetime leader of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, State Assemblymember Norman has faced an array of criminal trials. In 2005, he was convicted on three felony counts and one misdemeanor for soliciting and receiving illegal campaign contributions. Although voters had stuck with Norman, the conviction forced him to give up his seat. He could still face additional charges, springing from the alleged sale of judgeships in Brooklyn. Norman’s replacement in the State Assembly is a colleague of his father’s.
--Kevin Parker: The state senator from Brooklyn was accused of assaulting a traffic officer in 2005. The incident was one in a series of outbursts by Parker, who plead guilty to a misdemeanor and agreed to take anger management classes. In the meantime, he won re-election.
--Roger Green: In 2004, the Brooklyn State Assembly member resigned his post after pleading guilty to illegally accepting rides from a state contractor and then accepting “reimbursement” from the state for the free transportation. But the following fall, with little serious opposition, Green won his old seat back. Now, though the long-time legislator is again out of office, having given up his Assembly seat in 2006 to make an unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Congress.
--Guy Velella: In 2002, the longtime and powerful Republican state senator, whose district straddled the Bronx and Westchester, was indicted on bribery charges. Despite the accusations, Velella, like so many other discredited incumbents, handily won re-election boosted by such luminaries as Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The senator finally had to step down in 2004 after pleading guilty to charges that he illegally took money from people seeking state contracts to paint bridges and went off to jail. But controversy continued as a little known city panel initially let him leave jail early – a decision eventually overruled after intervention by Bloomberg.
Â
Gotham Gazette’s Reading NYC Book Club recently met with Brooke Masters, a reporter for the Financial Times whose book, Spoiling for a Fight: The Rise of Eliot Spitzer, details Eliot Spitzer’s career as New York State Attorney General. Masters talked about Spitzer’s new job as governor of the state; he was inaugurated on January 1, 1007. Below is an edited transcript.
Gotham Gazette: In the time covering Spitzer and in your time writing the book, what did you learn that you think it's important for people to know about Eliot Spitzer?
Brooke Masters: This is a guy who is extraordinarily ambitious...[but] unlike other politicians I've run into who are ambitious because they want to be somebody, he's ambitious because he wants to do something. That's going to make him an interesting governor. He's going to put himself on the line and risk losing... That's what made him such a controversial and successful attorney general – he would take on cases that were not obvious winners, and that might be on the edge and controversial, because he truly thought that what he was doing would accomplish a goal that he had set for his office, or were a way he saw of improving society.
Gotham Gazette: Tell us how Spitzer's experience with issues as attorney general might indicate what his priorities or approach might be as governor.
Gotham Gazette: A good place to start is his fight against white-collar crime on Wall Street. Is there any obvious way Spitzer would continue this campaign as governor? Does the office have duties of oversight on Wall Street?
Brooke Masters: Well, that's what made him famous. There are very few attorneys general that people can name, even their own, and Spitzer is famous pretty much around the country because of the white collar crime cases.
Spitzer knows that simply screaming at people isn't going to work. Whether he can avoid screaming at people, I don't know.
As governor he would appoint the folks who are in charge of the banking department, and the folks who are in charge of the insurance department, and have an overall policy role. He wouldn't be doing enforcement cases, but he would have some role in setting up rules on how banks and insurance companies treat their customers, and what the disclosure rules are. So sort of on the margins he would have an effect on that.
The Wall Street cases were a part of Spitzer's view – which he is happy to go on at length about, and does at the drop of a hat – about economic opportunity. His family went from nothing to fabulously wealthy in one generation. He believes in capitalism, he believes in the markets, and believes that government's role is making sure those opportunities are there for everybody. You're more likely to see him as governor emphasizing ways of encouraging economic opportunity in a less statist role. I think he's going to try to get away from the traditional Democratic style. Although he's probably in favor of raising the minimum wage and things like that, he will probably focus on trying to find ways to foster economic opportunity and make the markets fair.
Gotham Gazette: What else is on Spitzer's list?
Brooke Masters: Obviously, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity solution in relation to the funding of New York City schools is a big issue. He's been given a gift, because the Court of Appeals says he only has to spend $2 billion. But he himself said it would take $4 to $6 billion. I think he'll try to come up with some compromise numbers, and try to use that in a motivating way –- there will be a caveat that a lot of the money will have to go to unusual programs like the small schools that Bloomberg has been doing.
He's not a voucher guy, but he is in favor of charter schools – that there should be competition between regulators, there should be competition between schools, and that ultimately choice is what leads to improvement, and that people should be allowed to vote with their feet. That is part of his whole marketplace idea of the world.
Another priority is Medicaid. Anybody who follows the state budget knows that Medicaid is the fastest growing and largest part of the state budget. It also contributes to high property taxes, because the local governments also kick in for Medicaid...If Spitzer could bring down Medicaid costs, he'll have lots of money to do other things, but he'll also win points with the suburbanites who are paying high taxes.
He has made a no new taxes pledge, which was an interesting choice for a Democrat, particularly one who was running so far ahead in the polls. I don't think he had to; he's doing it because he believes it. If he solves Medicaid, he can bring taxes down without hurting other things.
Gotham Gazette: Has he given an indication as to how he thinks the Medicaid problem should be solved?
Brooke Masters: He talks a lot about streamlining and technology. He got really excited the other day about trying to improve hospital information technology, so when you go to a hospital all the other tests that you've had at the six other hospitals and doctor's offices you've been to will pop up, so they won't retest you for the 25 things that you've already been tested for. Particularly for Medicaid, which is paying those bills, if you could even cut down on a fifth of the tests, it would actually amount of substantial savings.
He's also talked about trying to expand primary care to cut down on emergency room visits. Everybody likes to talk about wouldn't it be nice if there were fewer emergency room visits. But I think that he's actually interested in setting aside money to do it.
Gotham Gazette: One of the things that Spitzer mentioned as a priority during his campaign for governor is so-called Albany reform – fixing how the state government actually works. Some of his critics have said that as attorney general he had the chance to deal with this but did not. Do you think that's a valid criticism?
Brooke Masters: I think it's unfair to say that Spitzer won't take on Albany simply because he hasn't taken on Albany. The attorney general, like any public official, has limited resources. And he did clearly choose to do Wall Street, rather than Albany.
Also, if you look at the staff he gathered, he did not have a particularly strong grounding in Albany. Public corruption cases require above all really good informants, really good sources, and a really good understanding of exactly how business is done. Taking it on as a prosecutor means you have to put together cases, and that is particularly tough.
As governor he might have the clout -- as someone who just won the election with a large margin of victory -- to pass lobbying reform, and agency reform, and commission reform as legislation.
Bob Zane: Eliot Spitzer has been on record as critical of public authorities. Do you think he will try to get more control and get them to be more efficient?
Brooke Masters: Yes. The authorities control so much money. If you are going to try to get the state budget under control and refocus it, you have to get the authority money or you're never going to be able to do it. I don't know if it will work, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that on his agenda in the first two months.
Henry Stern: Doesn’t he appoint the members of the authorities?
Brooke Masters: Most of them do not serve at the pleasure of the governor, so they are going to be holdovers from former Governor George Pataki for quite a while. There's a lot of skullduggery being talked about – people resigning so that Pataki can re-appoint them now, so that Spitzer won't be able to appoint their own people. There's a long history of doing that in New York.
Gotham Gazette: One goal that Spitzer put on his agenda was to reform the redistricting process, and on the uber-technical side of things, do you think he’ll be successful in that? You’ve already touched on sort of what his working relationship might be with the legislature, but do you think he actually will be able to put his foot down on that?
Brooke Masters: I think he’s going to try. But I think he's going to do lobbying reform and campaign finance reform and authority reform first. They're all an easier sell. None of the others put the legislature at risk of their jobs.
Brooke Masters: Gun control was Spitzer's big loss. It’s going to be interesting because he worked with Andrew Cuomo on this and they both completely failed in the late 1990s. Cuomo in particular says he's still interested in pursuing it.
In the 1990s, New York was getting all these illegal guns from Virginia, because people would go to Virginia, buy a dozen guns – there are very loose rules there – and sell them here. Spitzer's theory was that the gun manufacturers knew full well which retailers were selling to lots and lots of people who were using the guns in crimes, and that if they just cut off a few of the bad dealers it would cut down on illegal gun crime.
He brought a lawsuit against the gun manufacturers arguing that they were creating a public nuisance by putting illegal guns on the streets. It was absolutely torched by the courts. They were not interested in this theory; they thought it was ridiculous.
It is a classic Spitzer thing to do. He takes this law – public nuisance – which is generally used for environmental cases and noise, and tries to apply it to something completely different, in this case illegal guns. It didn't work, but you might see Cuomo come back at that issue somehow. He and Spitzer both remain convinced that it was the right thing to do.
But he and Cuomo also tried to work with gun companies to see if they could get them to go along and create a screening program for retailers. It will be interesting to see if that comes back.
Gotham Gazette: As governor he might find fertile ground to work with that, since Bloomberg is so into combating illegal guns right now.
Brooke Masters: Exactly. I could see him working with Bloomberg on this. He and Bloomberg want to work together on a lot of stuff. They like one another, and they have a similar worldview. I think you'll see a lot of Bloomberg-Spitzer alliances on things.
But if you ask Spitzer to make a list of the five things he's going to do first, illegal guns are not there – as opposed to Cuomo. Spitzer's interested in crime, but he recognizes that he doesn't have that much hands-on authority on crime as governor; that's what the district attorneys and police departments and localities do.
Brooke Masters: Economic development upstate is also an issue. Basically we've got depressed Ohio everyplace north of Albany. Until that part of the state stops being completely depressed, that will be one of his priorities because it puts a drag on the whole rest of the state.
He wants to fix workers compensation, which seems like a real technical issue. But it turns out that New York has an extraordinarily expensive workers compensation program – the eighth most expensive in the nation in terms of the premiums that employers pay. But it is 49th in terms of payouts. Somewhere between the high premiums and the low payouts, a lot of money is disappearing. Nobody knows exactly what's wrong, but something must be. Spitzer is trying to solve that problem because he will win points with business for cutting their costs, but not hurt workers. If you eliminate the administrative costs, you could get the workers more money. It could be a win-win for everybody.
Book Club Member: You've laid out a pretty strong state agenda that Spitzer is going to pursue. Do you have any sense for whether he is going to pick any national issues where he might be able to make an impact? There is a rumor in Washington that he is going to take some dramatic action in New York State that will affect the national debate on climate change.
Brooke Masters: He is already part of a lawsuit. There is a lawsuit by a lot of states arguing that the the Environmental Protection Agency is falling down on its job, and ought to be regulating carbon dioxide to stop global warming. The EPA and the Bush administration say they do not have the authority; the states say that under the Clean Air Act they have the authority and the duty to regulate anything that may affect human health. Much of the legal theory in that case was developed by staff lawyers in the New York Attorney General's Office, because it has the biggest environmental unit of any of the attorneys general offices. While it is Massachusetts that is the lead attorney, number two is New York.
Gotham Gazette: When will that case be resolved?
Brooke Masters: If they all agree, it could come out as early as March. If it's a close five to four, it will be June.
Spitzer is clearly interested in global warming. On the other hand, he has to be careful not to do too many things at once. Taking on the international debate on climate change while trying to fix Albany may not be the smartest move politically. I would be surprised if it is in his first six months to a year.
I think the other issue where he can reshape the national debate and affect New York at the same time is on Medicaid. If he can figure out a way to reform or fix Medicaid in a way that can be applied to other states, then he becomes a leading national figure in that debate.
Philip Angel: Spitzer was clearly on a mission when he was attorney general, while Governor Pataki was in the background. Now you have an ambitious attorney general and an aggressive governor in Spitzer and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Do you have sense of how those new dynamics are going to play out?
Brooke Masters: Cuomo and Spitzer are not, to put it mildly, the best of buddies. They have bad blood from the gun campaign, where Spitzer felt that Cuomo sold him up the river. On the other hand, Cuomo is dying to keep Spitzer's staff on, because frankly Spitzer attracted people to that office who would not ordinarily work for the New York attorney general's office. If Cuomo really wants to hit the ground running, he really needs to keep Spitzer's people on. So right now they have an alliance of convenience.
Henry Stern: They have united against Hevesi.
Brooke Masters: Yes, they have. Also, politically, they come at things the same way. They want to root out corruption in Albany. So if Cuomo – who has Albany connections and might actually be able to get some informers – works on arresting the bad people, while Spitzer works on reform from the legislation point of view, they might actually accomplish something and not get in each other's way.
If Cuomo spends his whole term wishing he were governor and proposing governor-type things, then there will be a lot of conflict.
But you can see there are going to be collisions. How much conflict there were be depends on whether Cuomo can pivot, and do what an attorney general does. If he spends his whole term wishing he were governor and proposing governor-type things, then there will be a lot of conflict.
Bob Zane: Do you think that Spitzer will be able to secure the cooperation of the business people in New York after prosecuting them?
Brooke Masters: I think it's complicated. Spitzer was obviously seen as the prohibitive favorite in the governor's race, but not a single business group endorsed Faso; not a single one gave him any money.
Henry Stern: Fear.
Brooke Masters: Could be straight fear. But if you talk to business people and you tell them you're not going to quote them, a lot of them say he's an ambitious guy who wants to accomplish things... maybe it would be a good idea to have him on our side. At least his job isn't going to be to be the enforcer anymore. And Spitzer is pretty good at knowing what his job is.
Upstate, there's a lot of optimism that, unlike Pataki, he actually cares about trying to fix upstate. In March, Spitzer made that comment that upstate New York is like Appalachia. The Republicans seized on that, saying it was offensive. But the response from the business community upstate was, "He's right. It is like Appalachia here. Would somebody please come fix it?"
The Wall Street folks don't like him, obviously, because he's made their lives miserable. But one of their theories is that he'll have credibility if he comes out and say we need X reforms to help make the stock exchange strong, since he's clearly not a patsy for the industry.
Gotham Gazette: One of the themes of your book is that Spitzer, while he's effective and energetic, is very combative and alienating. Can you talk about how well his personality will transfer from attorney general to governor?
Brooke Masters: I think it will be really interesting. He's got to grow as a human being. He has been very much "My Way or the Highway." And that's not going to get him everywhere he needs to go.
On the one hand, everybody sort of believes that New York needs to change. All of the polls suggest that people voted for Spitzer because they thought he'd change things. In that way, his combative personality and his effort to shake things up could work in his favor. On the other hand, the big question is going to be when they get behind the scenes and get down to the negotiating, whether he can find a way to work with [Assembly Speaker Sheldon] Silver and [Senate Majority Leader Joseph] Bruno, or around them in a way to bring other legislators along. And I don't know that it works.
But the image that he gets angry and yells at people and gets out of control, I think it's overblown. He has more control over his temper than his critics would have you believe, but he uses it to scare the hell out of people.
That said, he is willing to tell people off, particularly people who don’t usually get told off. He doesn’t yell at secretaries, he doesn’t yell at waiters, he’s absolutely adored by the guys who drive him around. unlike many other politicians. He does yell at powerful people.
I think the big question is whether his head can control his natural instinct to be combative. That's going to be the big test for him – if he's going to be a great governor he's going to have to do that. I don't think you can really tell from his record whether he's going to pull it off. He's going to try. He knows that simply screaming at people isn't going to work. Whether he can avoid screaming at people, I don't know.
Bob Zane: Do you think that because he's wealthy, like Mayor Bloomberg, that he'll be more ethical, since you can't lobby him as much?
Brooke Masters: Maybe, because he's not going to be looking for a lobbying job at the end. On the other hand, some of the worst officials I have ever covered are wealthy people who think they are reformers, so they think the rules don't apply to them.
You could argue that Spitzer has that tendency. The campaign financing of his first two races in 1994 and 1998, the way he paid for it, it was not illegal, but it skirted every intention of the New York State ethics laws. Under these laws, you can put tons of money in your own campaign, but you can't fund your relatives' campaigns.
In Spitzer's family, the money is all with the dad. So Eliot Spitzer took out a private bank loan himself using some real estate he owned as collateral. That's legal; you can lend your own campaign money. But then his dad paid off the loan.
They were just going to get away with it until people starting asking questions about how he was paying off those loans on his salary. He finally had to say he would pay off his dad. It was not illegal because of the ways the laws were written. As for what the point of the law was – your dad can't buy you a seat – it was completely cheesy. That was one of these things where he was doing it for the good of America. You have to wonder if he's going to do it again. Hopefully he learned his lesson.
Bob Zane: It sounds like he's a lot like Giuliani. Do you think that if he does a real good job, like Giuliani did, we'll eventually see him run for president?
Brooke Masters: Remember, Giuliani was washed up before 9/11. So let's not root for another terrorist attack, which is what made Giuliani famous.
But he's a lot like Giuliani, and in the last chapter of the book I say that Spitzer has two models he can follow as governor.
The first is Giuliani, which is sort of the "army of one." Giuliani accomplished a great deal, and pissed off a heck of a lot of people doing it, which limited his political future – at least until 9/11. But it is coming back to haunt him as he thinks about running for president.
Giuliani is a good comparison because the two men have similar flaws. But Giuliani’s path – the I'm Right, You're Wrong, Do It My Way route – may be what the state needs. Giuliani would say, I came in as mayor and I busted heads in the unions and I busted the squeegee guys, and we did stop and frisk and alienated lots of people because someone had to save New York. And New York is now thriving. That's the model that you can really be nasty, combative, unfriendly, completely convinced of your own self-righteousness, and get stuff done. Barring an event like 9/11, it doesn't lead to long-term political success as a presidential candidate. But it might be good for the state.
The other model is Tom Dewey, who also was a completely self-righteous prosecutor, who also went into Albany and was completely combative. He vetoed something like one out of every three bills his first year. But within a couple years he realized he wasn't getting anything done and really changed his mode of operations. That's what I say when someone has to grow on the job. Dewey is a lot like Spitzer – bright, well educated, very driven white-hat prosecutor with wild national ambitions. He ran for president when he was still a prosecutor in New York, before he was governor. Dewey was able to pivot and work with the Democratic Party, and share credit.
If Spitzer does things like that, he can get lots done.
Gotham Gazette: You compare Spitzer to a lot of historical figures in New York politics. Who do you think he'd like to be compared to?
Brooke Masters: Oh, he loves being compared to Teddy Roosevelt. Spitzer has such a Teddy Roosevelt hang-up. He’s got Teddy Roosevelt pictures in his office, he quotes him – if you look at the transition New York Web site now there’s a Teddy Roosevelt quote. I mean he’s got total Teddy Roosevelt envy.
Spitzer has such a Teddy Roosevelt hang-up. He’s got total Teddy Roosevelt envy.
Admittedly, everybody’s got Teddy Roosevelt envy, because if you’re a middle-of-the-country person – which Spitzer would say he is, as a moderate Democrat — Roosevelt was the ultimate guy. He was a moderate Republican who broke with his party when his party did what he didn’t believe in. Roosevelt created the national parks, he took on big business, he revived antitrust law. Nowadays, he’s a hero.
But he was very, very unpopular at times during his early career because he was so combative. He was considered a complete nut. And I think Spitzer takes some comfort in that, too – that Teddy Roosevelt wasn’t always considered the hero.
Â